4 ms·

> Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? The questions read as slanted. This is a warning sign that you're dealing w

> Why was the McDonald's one not frivolous? Was it just because it was 185 degrees? The questions read as slanted. This is a warning sign that you're dealing with someone who's already made up their mind and is just looking to argue. That "just" especially is... a red flag. That on its own might not mean much, but then, there's this entire post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31042870 Which looks like a continuation of exactly that kind of thing. Asking questions in a one-sided way, demanding others do things for you even when they already pointed you in the right direction, hostile tone, et c. Even if done innocently, this style of posting can't be tolerated because it's a beloved trolling/shitposting tactic.

giantg2 4y ago
I think there was a communication issue. My post could have been worded better. I was specifically interested in the culpability portion. To my knowledge at that time it was simply about the temperature of the coffee. People were bringing up the injury portion. I wasn't questioning that part. Someone else on here brought up that the design of the cup was defective. That was the type of information I was looking for. Even some Google searching was not bringing up that for me, probably because like this thread, most people are focused on just the injury and the temperature. The cup issue really added to my understanding of the case, and answered my question about why it was not a frivolous case.
- brimble 4y ago
  Apologies for any offense my post gave you, then. I sincerely hope you have a great rest of your day (and to be extra clear, because writing on the Internet is hard, that's not sarcasm). I'll let it stand as a general description of why people may react negatively to certain kinds of post.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    No apology needed. My own post could have been worded better so I was taking the opportunity to clarify it.

giantg2 4y ago

I think there was a communication issue. My post could have been worded better. I was specifically interested in the culpability portion. To my knowledge at that time it was simply about the temperature of the coffee. People were bringing up the injury portion. I wasn't questioning that part. Someone else on here brought up that the design of the cup was defective. That was the type of information I was looking for. Even some Google searching was not bringing up that for me, probably because like this thread, most people are focused on just the injury and the temperature. The cup issue really added to my understanding of the case, and answered my question about why it was not a frivolous case.

brimble 4y ago
Apologies for any offense my post gave you, then. I sincerely hope you have a great rest of your day (and to be extra clear, because writing on the Internet is hard, that's not sarcasm). I'll let it stand as a general description of why people may react negatively to certain kinds of post.
- giantg2 4y ago
  No apology needed. My own post could have been worded better so I was taking the opportunity to clarify it.